Is Roman Reigns' worldwide popularity grossly understated?

[CycLoNe_]

From what I know and seeing stuff online here and there, seems like Reigns is just another case of being a head of the times. People tend to not like change when it happens. I can bet anything this time next year people will be all over him. They were when he was in the Shield so it will happen again. I personally don't find him that entertaining (never did even when I was watching) but the way the fans seem to be reacting makes it funny. Also, holy stats Batman! The OP is HQ out the butt. lol

That's a fair point. However, I do feel that most of this critics are so as a result more of the contagious propaganda against him initially spread by a few which later on became a fad of sorts, than anything else. People like and dislike certain performers all the time, nothing out of the ordinary in that but the manner in which this so called "Anti-Reigns" movement has manifested itself over the past year and a half has left me puzzled as well. If most of the discontent for him was really due to the fact that he had been allegedly put in a position he wasn't ready for; the sustained hostility from the same section of fans towards him when he was in mid card feuds with The Big Show and The Wyatts certainly implies a whole different story altogether and casts serious doubts upon this theory.

 

[Solid Snake]

That's a fair point. However, I do feel that most of this critics are so as a result more of the contagious propaganda against him initially spread by a few which later on became a fad of sorts, than anything else. People like and dislike certain performers all the time, nothing out of the ordinary in that but the manner in which this so called "Anti-Reigns" movement has manifested itself over the past year and a half has left me puzzled as well. If most of the discontent for him was really due to the fact that he had been allegedly put in a position he wasn't ready for; the sustained hostility from the same section of fans towards him when he was in mid card feuds with The Big Show and The Wyatts certainly implies a whole different story altogether and casts serious doubts upon this theory.

There was a study done, I can't remember what it was called, but a man watched how people reacted to other people on subway stations in New York. Most of them would actually look around and mimic whatever was being done. If people were laughing, they would laugh.. If they look disgusted, they would look disgusted. It is some kind of physcological thing that triggers our brains to naturally want to fit in. I would imagine this is how this anti-Reigns thing started.

 

[Roadster]

There was a study done, I can't remember what it was called, but a man watched how people reacted to other people on subway stations in New York. Most of them would actually look around and mimic whatever was being done. If people were laughing, they would laugh.. If they look disgusted, they would look disgusted. It is some kind of physcological thing that triggers our brains to naturally want to fit in. I would imagine this is how this anti-Reigns thing started.

+ the rinse and repeat booking, sub par skills across the board and shameless attempts to get him over.

I'm a fan of the guy, and I even see why people would hate him, but yeah a lot of people are sheep and only hate because a few marks in Philly did.

 

[Solid Snake]

+ the rinse and repeat booking, sub par skills across the board and shameless attempts to get him over.

I'm a fan of the guy, and I even see why people would hate him, but yeah a lot of people are sheep and only hate because a few marks in Philly did.

There is a lot about the booking that was straight crap but so many of the casual fans began hating him for no reason because it was simply "the thing" to do. Moneky see monkkey do. All that.

 

[Aids Johnson]

Reigns is a great example of shoved down your throat, and even when he lost his first title reign it wasn't salvagable without some time off IMO. Have him take a beating and go the fuck away for a bit before coming back for a huge save. OR TURN HIM HEEL and cut it with the gray area bullshit. He is gassed too quickly in the ring, spent more time in the RR corner than anyone else by far in 2015, and then this year? Come on, that RR match was pathetic.

Rollins being HHH 2.0 is great because ROLLINS CAN TALK AND BACK IT UP, Reigns is great, but being pushed to the moon because of his look over abilities. I'd rather see him get beasted to the point he can rock 20 minute matches strongly and talk shit on the mic. It's like when they made Ryback face after his amazing bully gimmick - there was no saving the boo's and Goldberg chants again.

I don't hate Reigns at all, he will be WWE champ at least 5+ times IMO, but this shit now is trash. He was perfect in his role as shield leader and should run his own small crew like Rollins did with Kane and the midgets (although Reigns will need people who can talk as he is nothing like Rollins, who carried it)

You think Reigns could get away with this?

Reigns is great, but is exposed too easily.

 

[Roadster]

He was hardly the leader of the Shield.

 

[Gman003]

Yeah I think a kayfabe injury would do him some good right now. Hell there could even be a wyatt family interruption or something at MITB that sidelines him for a few months.

That could also be a way for rollins to get the title back which would make their rivary better because then both of them would have forfeited the title without actually losing it.

 

[Roadster]

Reigns losing the title in a screwy fashion 3 times in a row, within 9 months is so stupid

 

[Gman003]

All the while ambrose is holding onto the briefcase and when reigns comes back later on and tries to reclaim the title from Seth. ..boom ambrose cashes in

 

[Aids Johnson]

He was hardly the leader of the Shield.

Wrong context, Rollins was leader but he was the powerhouse and the one putting legs on his shoulders. He was perfect in that role, but as champ he makes a 20+ minute HHH promo sound amazing no matter how long Reigns is in ring. I'd say the same shit if Ambrose was champ, honestly. They are upper midcarders who deserve a run or two, but nothing like Rollins has done. Cena runs the crowd the whole time, Reigns has to get the sound diluted to keep their setup running. Kevin is the issue more than anyone, but I see no situation where Reigns as face is entertaining to me, he is bland as hell and especially after the AJ Styles superman shit they pulled. What was it, 3 Styles clash and only one Spear (which is a shit move and looks awful) to end the match. It's an easy way to have people like me see it as a slap in the face to anyone interested in the match still after seeing spoilers.

 

[CycLoNe_]

Reigns is a great example of shoved down your throat, and even when he lost his first title reign it wasn't salvagable without some time off IMO. Have him take a beating and go the fuck away for a bit before coming back for a huge save. OR TURN HIM HEEL and cut it with the gray area bullshit. He is gassed too quickly in the ring, spent more time in the RR corner than anyone else by far in 2015, and then this year? Come on, that RR match was pathetic.

I'm not quite sure of that TBH. I believe his return from the HHH beat down was incredibly well done with him adopting a drastically changed demeanour, being much more reminiscent of his Shield days, the demeanour that got him over in the first place. Heel turn is always an option but WWE will obviously be very reluctant to pull the trigger seeing how Reigns HAS actually established himself as the most popular superstar in the worldwide domain after Cena in his current role as a face/tweener itself. The figures I posted in the OP are a testament to that. The live crowds in the most traditional of wrestling centres would obviously paint a picture quite opposite to the notion but the worldwide numbers can't be disputed.

Rollins being HHH 2.0 is great because ROLLINS CAN TALK AND BACK IT UP, Reigns is great, but being pushed to the moon because of his look over abilities. I'd rather see him get beasted to the point he can rock 20 minute matches strongly and talk shit on the mic. It's like when they made Ryback face after his amazing bully gimmick - there was no saving the boo's and Goldberg chants again.

I meant HHH 2.0 in the context of the HHH Reign of Terror 2002-05, which is a heavily despised period in many smark consumers' eyes, a demographic that pushes the argument that Reigns is bound to be Cena 2.0 in the forthcoming years. As for the competency argument, I think it's pretty subjective to be honest. Rocking 20 minute matches and talking great on the mic is all good, but just consider the fact that this following match was a RAW main event in 2003, just a RAW MAIN EVENT!:



Neither of these guys could rock 20 minute matches and talk great; but just the sheer amount of star power reverberating throughout the arena is remarkable, that's what you ultimately strive to achieve in this business, make people care about what you're doing and about to do, and this wasn't the main event of even a B PPV, this was the main event of RAW! Now I take the point that it was then and the times have changed, but I'd still push forth the point vociferously that star power and charisma easily overcome every other apparent deficiency you many have and in that regard, Reigns scores pretty highly amongst his peers, he's probably the only star in the new generation of main eventers who has managed to compel the entire domain of consumers in every nook and corner of the world to where WWE is telecast into talking about him. The emotions may range between two vastly different extremes, but the fact remains that Reigns has indeed managed to stamp his authority as the unambiguous leader of the new generation amongst the entire domain of consumers, and this isn't all due to kayfabe.. as the figures in the OP show, he was head and shoulders above his Shield brethren during the Shield run as well.

I don't hate Reigns at all, he will be WWE champ at least 5+ times IMO, but this shit now is trash. He was perfect in his role as shield leader and should run his own small crew like Rollins did with Kane and the midgets (although Reigns will need people who can talk as he is nothing like Rollins, who carried it)

You think Reigns could get away with this?

Reigns is great, but is exposed too easily.

I feel this has gone way beyond that to be frank here. Reigns can have the mic skills of The Rock and I'd put a lot of money on him still receiving hostility. Just like how some of the critics refuse the acknowledge his drastic improvement as an in-ring performer in the last year and a half or so and still continue to push the out-dated Jan 2015 critiques. WWE is giving subtle hints that Reigns being a smug Tweener is the farthest they'll push him on the spectrum. I personally would be stoked to see him as a heel since I sense great potential there but the chances look slim at the moment.

 

[Aids Johnson]

That is 3x more than i'm willing to read in one sitting. We can agree to disagree, sorry.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I have nothing against Reigns and I appreciate the thought the OP has put into his case, but in the face of that respect, I have to say it's not worth arguing because rather than taking dissenting opinions into account, he has just dismissed them carte blanche.

Opinions and preferences aside, the objective facts just do not follow the narrative here. I, at one point, considered running a Pearson Product moment correlation coefficient in order to show that the OP is incorrect in his assumption that Raw ratings do not drive financials... the actual financial and ratings reports indicate a STRONG positive correlation that disputes the claims of the OP. However, I decided to abandon this plan when it became obvious to me that the OP would dismiss any objective data for data that simply supports his subjective conclusions.

OP, this is NOT meant to be an insult. You have a sharp mind and I appreciate that. But what I would recommend is that you try to consider and incorporate dissenting data into your conclusions. Your posts are very biased and reject objective data and rather than acknowledge dissenting evidence, you reject it outright. You may think that the reason that people are disagreeing with your conclusions is because they don't like Roman Reigns but that is not the case. I have little problem with Reigns, but as I mentioned before, I am a scientist and I believe in running collective data objectively. You dismiss this data without even considering it and you cherry pick data that supports your conclusion. If I was a professor in college (and I have taught college courses), I would fail you for your conclusions. That is not the way statistics work. HOWEVER, I admire your spirit and dedication and I feel that when you decide to incorporate other opinions objectively, you will be able to support your conclusions more accurately.

Good luck. I won't say anything more on this issue.

 

[CycLoNe_]

I have nothing against Reigns and I appreciate the thought the OP has put into his case, but in the face of that respect, I have to say it's not worth arguing because rather than taking dissenting opinions into account, he has just dismissed them carte blanche.

Not in the least. That's just one theory that I've floated around. I'm more than open to every other viewpoint possible. Hell, I myself think that Reigns' own competence and his booking have had at least some degree of effect on his overall reactions, it's undeniable.

Opinions and preferences aside, the objective facts just do not follow the narrative here. I, at one point, considered running a Pearson Product moment correlation coefficient in order to show that the OP is incorrect in his assumption that Raw ratings do not drive financials... the actual financial and ratings reports indicate a STRONG positive correlation that disputes the claims of the OP. However, I decided to abandon this plan when it became obvious to me that the OP would dismiss any objective data for data that simply supports his subjective conclusions.

Why would I dismiss objective data when in fact the entire opening post consists of objective data itself? On the contrary, I would much rather appreciate it to the fullest. Remember that wrestling discussions are bound to contain a large degree of subjectivity owing to it's nature. Someone may think that The Great Khali's style of wrestling is superior to HBK's and there's no concrete way in which anybody can actually "prove" beyond doubt for it to be otherwise. In that regard, it's nothing out of the ordinary for people to try to push their viewpoints! Certainly don't take it like they're presenting them as concrete facts, all of the discussions are basically theories and hypotheses.

OP, this is NOT meant to be an insult. You have a sharp mind and I appreciate that. But what I would recommend is that you try to consider and incorporate dissenting data into your conclusions. Your posts are very biased and reject objective data and rather than acknowledge dissenting evidence, you reject it outright. You may think that the reason that people are disagreeing with your conclusions is because they don't like Roman Reigns but that is not the case. I have little problem with Reigns, but as I mentioned before, I am a scientist and I believe in running collective data objectively. You dismiss this data without even considering it and you cherry pick data that supports your conclusion. If I was a professor in college (and I have taught college courses), I would fail you for your conclusions. That is not the way statistics work. HOWEVER, I admire your spirit and dedication and I feel that when you decide to incorporate other opinions objectively, you will be able to support your conclusions more accurately.
Good luck. I won't say anything more on this issue.

I appreciate your advice. Again, I would like to stress on the point that I'm not neglecting any form of data whether objective or subjective that has been presented in the thread thus far; I'm just offering some of the possible different interpretations of the said data, something a lot of posters have done with my data as well. I must confess here that I myself am puzzled with how the Reigns' situation has transpired over the past year or so and certainly can't offer a fool-proof concrete explanation for it. There are certainly a lot of factors at play here which must all be taken into account.